FLOWERS v. STATE (2018)

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Bryan FLOWERS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17–3298

Decided: February 23, 2018

Bryan Flowers, pro se, Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Affirmed. See Hamilton v. State, 996 So.2d 964, 966 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (rejecting defendant's claim that his sentence violates Hale v. State, 630 So.2d 521 (Fla. 1993), where, as here, the sentence “do[es] not, in the aggregate, exceed the maximum he could have received if all sentences subject to enhancement under the habitual felony offender statute had been enhanced (but run concurrently), and because his sentence[ ] also do[es] not, in the aggregate, exceed the maximum he could have received if none of his sentences had been enhanced but all had been ordered to run consecutively”).

Per Curiam.

Wetherell, Rowe, and Jay, JJ., concur.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network